Watcher’s Council winners for July 29, 2016

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . I’m running late again posting the winners from the last round of Watcher’s Council nominations. And that’s a shame too, because last week’s winning submissions are so darn good, you really need to read them if you haven’t already. Oh, and please read the forum about the conventions too.

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

““The way that I look at it, you take the two officers in New York. I was heart-broken because I knew for sure that these officers had nothing to do with the killing of Eric Garner. You can’t generally be anti-police, because if you become completely anti-police, then criminals are going to take over. When we see these killings, the general thought here is that two wrongs don’t make a right.” – Former gang leader Arthur Reed, AKA ‘Silky Slim’

“… Black Lives Matter never protests when every 14 hours somebody is killed in Chicago, probably 70-80% of the time (by) a black person. Where are they then? Where are they when a young black child is killed?” – Rudy Giuliani

This weeks’ winning essay is Stately McDanial Manor’sDallas: An Explosive Use Of Police Force. In it, he examines the legal and practical issues that come to bear when deadly force is used by police with a professional’s eye as a former policemen, what determinations a policeman has to make in seconds in order todo his or her job and how these standaqrds apply when it comes to personal self defense. Here’s a slice of this well written, informative post:

Police use of force is very much in the news these days. On one hand, Social Justice warriors and Democrat politicians (yes; I know I repeat myself) argue that virtually any use of force against favored victim groups–these days, primarily young black males–is not only illegitimate, but inherently racist and criminal. On the other, most people haven’t a clue about the legal issues revolving around the use of deadly force.

The social justice cry is particularly loud when the criminal was not carrying a gun. In such cases, the Michael Brown case being an obvious contemporary example, the cry “unarmed black man” reverberates throughout the media and blogosphere as though those three words say all that need be said, and unquestionably prove any and everything Black Lives Matter cracktivists assert.
In reality, a criminal relying only on his hands and feet can present a deadly threat, a threat justifying an entirely lawful lethal response, whether done by any member of the public or a police officer. This was exactly the case with Michael Brown. It was also the case with Trayvon Martin. Both are continually cited as unarmed, black, holy social justice martyrs, despite the fact that both criminals died while under the influence of drugs, in the act of trying to kill others–classic cases of self-defense–and no police officers were involved in Martin’s death.

One contemporary case of great significance is the ambush murders of Dallas police officers. Everything about that case effectively refutes the arguments of the social justice crowd. The black killer was very well armed and trained, and was absolutely a racist. We know because during brief negotiations, he expressly said he wanted to kill white police officers, and intended to kill as many as he could.

Even so, some are crying excessive use of police force because the Dallas Police used explosives–reportedly C4, a military grade plastic explosive–delivered by a remote-controlled robot, to actually blow the shooter to bits. And after all, he was black, so the police must be racist somehow. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reports:

Some apparently believed that the officers engaged in the standoff with Johnson, and who had tried unsuccessfully to persuade him to surrender, needed to come close enough to Johnson (who had already killed multiple officers) to be shot at before they would be justified in killing him. As it was, said one law professor, only the robot was in danger.

This kind of commentary proves primarily one thing: even the overwhelming majority of lawyers have no understanding of deadly force law.

When cop killers are willing to die in order to take out police officers in gun battles, we are in uncharted territory. Police departments need to find ways to fight back without accommodating the killers’ desire for a fire fight.

Actually, Mirengoff is partially incorrect. We are not in uncharted territory, as I’ll explain, but first, two important preliminary issues: anyone interested in this topic, or who carries a concealed weapon, must have Andrew Branca’s The Law of Self Defense, an indispensable book. Branca and I often cover national cases such as the Martin case, and currently, the prosecution of the Baltimore officers, he at Legal Insurrection. Also, we must have an understanding of the issues–triggers, if you will–relating to the use of force, and particularly deadly force.

Each state has its own very specific laws on these issues, and it’s an individual duty to be familiar with those laws. When force has been used, particularly deadly force, those laws will be applied to determine whether that defense was lawful self-defense–justifiable homicide–or some degree of murder.

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, andyou won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Share this:

Fry em like bacon, is very likely a Nation of Islam slogan, from back in the day.

That’s because Islam doesn’t eat pork. They consider it unclean or ungodly. See the connection? They don’t call cops “pork” because they want to eat humans. They call cops “pork” because to them, it is the same thing as excrement.

Writing this blog is a labor of love. However, if you'd like to donate money for my efforts, please feel free to do so: